The board has spent a lot of time recently talking about how well Michigan needs to recruit to beat OSU, win the Big Ten, and contend for a playoff birth. So I thought it would be interesting to look at the average recruiting rank of each team that has made the College football playoffs and then compare them to Michigan's roster. I used the overall class rank over a five year period because I think it gives a good picture of the roster. I'm not saying this is the only or best measure of baseline talent but it seems like a good place to start. As others have mentioned on the board the number 5-star recruits and the number of top 100 recruits are also important measures (@Rhawk27 I think you looked at "elite recruits" a while ago. I'd be interested in seeing how those numbers mapped onto these numbers). I think with the variability of outcomes among recruits it makes sense to look at the entire class when trying to determine the baseline of talent needed. This will help factor in guys like Devin Bush who elevate team rankings but would be missed in the analysis of elite recruits. You all can look at the numbers below and reach your own conclusions. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts. Here are a few things that jumped out to me.
1) I've often said that teams do not need to recruit top 5 classes every year to make the playoffs. I think the data supports that point. There is a baseline average you need to have enough talent to make the playoffs. To me, it looks like that baseline is a roster with an average class ranking of around 10. There have been a few outliers (MSU and Washington) but for the most part, if you're class average over five classes isn't around 10 you aren't in the playoffs. Since the start of the college football playoffs, only three teams have qualified with an average class ranking above 15 (Oregon, MSU, and Washington).
2) I've also often said that Michigan has recruited well enough to make the playoffs. Based on these numbers I was wrong. Clearly we've been close to making the playoffs (2016 and 2018) but the average class rank for those teams was 19 and 18 respectively. The fact that Harbaugh was able to be competitive with those groups is pretty impressive. Now, we still have had enough talent to expect a win or two against OSU, but OSU has consistently had teams inside the top 10 threshold while Michigan has not.
3) A single class isn't all that important, however, if you want to be competitive you can't stack poor classes on top of each other. This may sound intuitive but I generally think folks put too much stock in single recruiting classes. A few years ago folks freaked out because Michigan's 2018 class ended up ranked 24th. Similarly, when OSU's 2019 class ended up 21st folks thought it was as a sign that their recruiting machine was slowing down. Neither class significantly hurt Michigan or OSU. There have been lots of examples of teams making the playoffs with recruiting classes that ranked in the 20s. As long as you continue to stack highly ranked classes around those groups you'll be fine. What you can't survive are multiple bad classes back to back. Going back to point two Michigan has been significantly hampered by the 2014 and 2015 classes. They were ranked 31st and 49th and created a pretty big hole in the roster. Even though they were surrounded by top 10 classes it wasn't enough to make up the difference.
4) If there is good news it's that Michigan should finally have a team with the baseline talent to make the playoffs. The 2014 and 2015 classes have cycled out of the program and have been replaced by top 10 classes. Michigan's average class ranking for the 2020 team is 10.6. It is the highest-rated group Harbaugh has had and the closet the team has been to OSU (6.6) over the past five years. I'm not saying that means Michigan will beat OSU next season but the discrepancy in roster talent seems to be lessening. For all the talk of U of M's recruiting being a mess, Harbaugh has steadily moved the team in the right direction. His classes are starting to look more like Lloyd's and that level of talent should be enough to keep Michigan competitive.
5) There are two things that poke pretty big holes in the analysis. First, Alabama has clearly recruited on a level that is higher than everyone else. They also win far more NCs. Even when teams like Clemson, OSU, and LSU were able to beat them it was still a pretty big upset. So you might not have to bring in a top 5 class every year but the one program that has tends to win more than everyone else. The second thing looking at average class rankings doesn't account for is attrition. I don't know who was actually still on the team when these programs made the playoffs. That said this is part of the reason I think using the overall team rank is useful. The team rank doesn't predict exactly which recruits will develop into good players but it does predict the team is likely to find someone who can play. Using Michigan as an example it's not that big of a deal that Jordan Anthony and Drew Singleton didn't pan out because Devin Bush and Cam McGrone exceeded their recruiting rankings.
Playoff participants 2014-present
2019 Playoffs
2015 Playoffs
Michigan's Harbaugh era average class rank
1) I've often said that teams do not need to recruit top 5 classes every year to make the playoffs. I think the data supports that point. There is a baseline average you need to have enough talent to make the playoffs. To me, it looks like that baseline is a roster with an average class ranking of around 10. There have been a few outliers (MSU and Washington) but for the most part, if you're class average over five classes isn't around 10 you aren't in the playoffs. Since the start of the college football playoffs, only three teams have qualified with an average class ranking above 15 (Oregon, MSU, and Washington).
2) I've also often said that Michigan has recruited well enough to make the playoffs. Based on these numbers I was wrong. Clearly we've been close to making the playoffs (2016 and 2018) but the average class rank for those teams was 19 and 18 respectively. The fact that Harbaugh was able to be competitive with those groups is pretty impressive. Now, we still have had enough talent to expect a win or two against OSU, but OSU has consistently had teams inside the top 10 threshold while Michigan has not.
3) A single class isn't all that important, however, if you want to be competitive you can't stack poor classes on top of each other. This may sound intuitive but I generally think folks put too much stock in single recruiting classes. A few years ago folks freaked out because Michigan's 2018 class ended up ranked 24th. Similarly, when OSU's 2019 class ended up 21st folks thought it was as a sign that their recruiting machine was slowing down. Neither class significantly hurt Michigan or OSU. There have been lots of examples of teams making the playoffs with recruiting classes that ranked in the 20s. As long as you continue to stack highly ranked classes around those groups you'll be fine. What you can't survive are multiple bad classes back to back. Going back to point two Michigan has been significantly hampered by the 2014 and 2015 classes. They were ranked 31st and 49th and created a pretty big hole in the roster. Even though they were surrounded by top 10 classes it wasn't enough to make up the difference.
4) If there is good news it's that Michigan should finally have a team with the baseline talent to make the playoffs. The 2014 and 2015 classes have cycled out of the program and have been replaced by top 10 classes. Michigan's average class ranking for the 2020 team is 10.6. It is the highest-rated group Harbaugh has had and the closet the team has been to OSU (6.6) over the past five years. I'm not saying that means Michigan will beat OSU next season but the discrepancy in roster talent seems to be lessening. For all the talk of U of M's recruiting being a mess, Harbaugh has steadily moved the team in the right direction. His classes are starting to look more like Lloyd's and that level of talent should be enough to keep Michigan competitive.
5) There are two things that poke pretty big holes in the analysis. First, Alabama has clearly recruited on a level that is higher than everyone else. They also win far more NCs. Even when teams like Clemson, OSU, and LSU were able to beat them it was still a pretty big upset. So you might not have to bring in a top 5 class every year but the one program that has tends to win more than everyone else. The second thing looking at average class rankings doesn't account for is attrition. I don't know who was actually still on the team when these programs made the playoffs. That said this is part of the reason I think using the overall team rank is useful. The team rank doesn't predict exactly which recruits will develop into good players but it does predict the team is likely to find someone who can play. Using Michigan as an example it's not that big of a deal that Jordan Anthony and Drew Singleton didn't pan out because Devin Bush and Cam McGrone exceeded their recruiting rankings.
Playoff participants 2014-present
2019 Playoffs
- LSU
- 2015 - 8th
- 2016 - 5th
- 2017 - 8th
- 2018 - 14th
- 2019 - 3rd
- Average class rank - 7.6
- Clemson
- 2015 - 4th
- 2016 - 6th
- 2017 - 22nd
- 2018 - 8th
- 2019 - 9th
- Average class rank - 9.8
- Ohio State
- 2015 - 9th
- 2016 - 3rd
- 2017 - 2nd
- 2018 - 2nd
- 2019 - 21st
- Average class rank - 7.4
- Oklahoma
- 2015 - 14th
- 2016 - 16th
- 2017 - 7th
- 2018 - 8th
- 2019 - 5th
- Average class rank - 10
- Clemson
- 2014 - 13th
- 2015 - 4th
- 2016 - 6th
- 2017 - 22nd
- 2018 - 8th
- Average class rank - 10.6
- Alabama
- 2014 - 1st
- 2015 - 2nd
- 2016 - 1st
- 2017 - 1st
- 2018 - 7th
- Average class rank - 2.4
- Notre Dame
- 2014 - 11th
- 2015 - 11th
- 2016 - 13th
- 2017 - 13th
- 2018 - 11th
- Average class rank - 11.8
- Oklahoma
- 2014 - 15th
- 2015 - 14th
- 2016 - 16th
- 2017 - 7th
- 2018 - 8th
- Average class rank - 12
- Alabama
- 2013 - 1st
- 2014 - 1st
- 2015 - 2nd
- 2016 - 1st
- 2017 - 1st
- Average class rank - 1.2
- Georgia
- 2013 - 12th
- 2014 - 7th
- 2015 - 6th
- 2016 - 9th
- 2017 - 3rd
- Average class rank - 7.4
- Clemson
- 2013 - 14th
- 2014 - 13th
- 2015 - 4th
- 2016 - 6th
- 2017 - 22nd
- Average class rank - 11.8
- Oklahoma
- 2013 - 15th
- 2014 - 15th
- 2015 - 14th
- 2016 - 16th
- 2017 - 7th
- Average class rank - 13.4
- Clemson
- 2012 - 14th
- 2013 - 14th
- 2014 - 13th
- 2015 - 4th
- 2016 - 6th
- Average class rank - 10.2
- Alabama
- 2012 - 1st
- 2013 - 1st
- 2014 - 1st
- 2015 - 2nd
- 2016 - 1st
- Average class rank - 1.2
- OSU
- 2012 - 4th
- 2013 - 2nd
- 2014 - 3rd
- 2015 - 9th
- 2016 - 3rd
- Average class rank - 4.2
- Washington
- 2012 - 21st
- 2013 - 18th
- 2014 - 36th
- 2015 - 30th
- 2016 - 37th
- Average class rank - 28.4
2015 Playoffs
- Alabama
- 2011 - 1st
- 2012 - 1st
- 2013 - 1st
- 2014 - 1st
- 2015 - 2nd
- Average class rank - 1.2
- Clemson
- 2011 - 8th
- 2012 - 14th
- 2013 - 14th
- 2014 - 13th
- 2015 - 4th
- Average class rank - 10.6
- Oklahoma
- 2011 - 14th
- 2012 - 11th
- 2013 - 15th
- 2014 - 15th
- 2015 - 14th
- Average class rank - 13.8
- MSU
- 2011 - 31st
- 2012 - 41st
- 2013 - 40th
- 2014 - 22nd
- 2015 - 22nd
- Average class rank - 31.2
- OSU
- 2010 - 25th
- 2011 - 11th
- 2012 - 4th
- 2013 - 2nd
- 2014 - 3rd
- Average class rank - 9
- Oregon
- 2010 - 13th
- 2011 - 9th
- 2012 - 16th
- 2013 - 22nd
- 2014 - 26th
- Average class rank - 17.2
- Florida State
- 2010 - 10th
- 2011 - 2nd
- 2012 - 6th
- 2013 - 10th
- 2014 - 4th
- Average class rank - 6.4
- Alabama
- 2010 - 1st
- 2011 - 1st
- 2012 - 1st
- 2013 - 1st
- 2014 - 1st
- Average class rank - 1
Michigan's Harbaugh era average class rank
- 2015 Team
- 2011 - 21st
- 2012 - 7th
- 2013 - 5th
- 2014 - 31st
- 2015 - 50th
- Average class rank - 22.8
- 10-3 record, Capital One Bowl Bid
- 2016 team
- 2012 - 7th
- 2013 - 5th
- 2014 - 31st
- 2015 - 50th
- 2016 - 4th
- Average class rank - 19.4
- 10-3 record, Orange Bowl Bid
- 2017 team
- 2013 - 5th
- 2014 - 31st
- 2015 - 50th
- 2016 - 4th
- 2017 - 4th
- Average class rank - 18.8
- 8-5, Outback Bowl Bid
- 2018 team
- 2014 - 31st
- 2015 - 50th
- 2016 - 4th
- 2017 - 4th
- 2018 - 24th
- Average class rank - 22.6
- 10-2, Peach Bowl Bid
- 2019 team
- 2015 - 50th
- 2016 - 4th
- 2017 - 4th
- 2018 - 24th
- 2019 -10th
- Average class rank - 18.4
- 9-4 Citrus Bowl Bid
- Michigan
- 2016 - 4th
- 2017 - 4th
- 2018 - 24th
- 2019 - 10th
- 2020 -11th
- Average class rank - 10.6
- OSU
- 2016 - 3rd
- 2017 - 2nd
- 2018 - 2nd
- 2019 - 21st
- 2020 - 5th
- Average class rank - 6.6
